Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Obamacare Predictions for May 2015 (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  46  47  48   
Author Topic: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's all go on the record now with our predictions for how Obamacare will be working 18 months from today. You can go on the record with any prediction, from complete collapse and repeal all the way to tens of millions more covered by medicare and healthcare insurance off of the exchanges.

I predict it will still be the law of the land, no death spirals, some boring fixes will be put in place to address parts of the law that were not working, and the minority of the population directly affected by the exchanges (ie; those without health insurance from their employer) will generally be satisfied. The annual rate of healthcare cost growth will continue close to 50 year lows. Polling will indicate that more Americans will favor continuing the law than repealing it. And Republicans will still be benghazi'ing some weird aspect of Obamacare that motivates their base but that the majority of Americans just don't care about.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I had thought that the insurance companies were about to learn a lesson the hard way as they start to go bankrupt because not enough people can possibly afford to make these monthly payments on premiums this high no matter how many more payday loan stores open up in the neighborhood but I recently heard of another little known provision in Obamacare that actually covers this contingency with massive and unlimited taxpayer bailouts and support to the insurance companies so basically Obama played a deep game and saw all of this coming. So that bailout/takeover will be necessary to keep Obamacare from bankrupting insurance companies especially when the young and healthy don't fall for the scam.


On another note, though I'm not for salary caps for private companies, once the government starts paying the insurance companies and also now that the government says we have to pay them or we are criminals I don't see how anyone can justify their million dollar salaries and benefits anymore. So you can expect that to come next. If it's a free market that's one thing and that's great that people can make as much as others are willing to pay for their product but this isn't a free market anymore and in fact it's not even a free country anymore either. So another prediction is that there will be serious talk about salary caps for insurance executives and broad support from Americans especially if the insurance companies get a bailout but even if they don't because why should we be forced by law to pay for some big wig insurance company executive's multimillion dollar salary?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What to you believe will prevent the death spiral resulting from the shutdown of small oncology clinics due to the April 2013 rule change re medicaid reimbursement for basic cancer drugs?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, for this thread, let's just go out on a limb and make our predictions about what will actually occur. After all, G3 says I am running away from the topic of Obamacare. Instead, I'd like to face right up to the ultimate measure - despite initial problems, will it work and will it be sustained.

All of those 100% critics (of which you are not one, Pete) probably believe that Obamacare will do grievous harm and/or be repealed (I don't think that they would be so critical if they truly believed that the system work work, and bring net benefits in terms of providing better coverage and bending the cost curve). So they should feel confident about predicting the disaster that they believe will occur by the randomly-chosen date of May 2015. And on that day, we can go back and look at this thread, and determine who was right.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fair enough. The problem I describe isn't all Obamacare but a previous problem agravated by O.

I don't think you are running away.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1 web portal will still be scaling badly despite now being hosted by HP enterprise division.

2 advertisement for healthcare by third party groups closely associated with democrat interests will have increased dramatically.

3. Security concerns will improve to a "d" level.

4. Small business wil still be unable to utilize portal for employee insurance.

5. Carve outs/set asides for democrat leaning groups and industries will increase. Resulting in unions getting favorable tax and regulatory treatment. While industries with political alliances with Democrats such as GM or unionized teachers will see passes made on regulatory and tax application of self insured policies.

6. Medicare and Medicaid annual funding will be further cut.

7. States that took the Medicare Medicaid prebate funds will beg Washington to make federal direct funding permanent.

8. Medical device manufacturing will see continued offshore flight.

9. Medical staff directly related to patient contact and care will continue to see cuts. Paper pushers associated with medical staffing will increase.

10. Youth purchase of policies will lagg 25% behind expected adoption of coverage for people aged 26- 35.

11. Insurance pools will have fewer insurer options as companies cannot acheive sustainable profit margins. Single provider will increase across additional medical care regions.

12. Medical savings accounts will be sunset.

13. IRS will accept fraudulent self reporting.

14. Emergency room access will increase as the primary access point.

15. Fraudulent or non paid healthcare access by illegal aliens will show no change.

16. Doctor shortages will speed up and calls for H1B visa carve outs will be required .

17. New classification of nurses created with far less traing ing compared to RN or PA levels, yet wil have pharmacy rights.

18. Wait times to see primary care physician for scheduled appointments will increase by three days and acctual examination time will drop by four minutes.

19. Physician consultation time will decrease by 4%.

20. Medicaid and Medicare acceptance rates for new patients will decline 1%. Payouts on reimbursements will suffer a real decline of coverage by 1%.

21 coverage rates among the uninsured will still have 40,000,000 uncovered.

22. Private insurance with private closed health systems will see an increase in market share of 3%. Trend towards concierge doctor access for wealthy individuals increase.

23. Obamacare remains law.

24. Co-pays increase 4% on average.

25. Deductibles increase 2% on average.

26. Bed access and availibility issues force delays in elective surgery.

27. Pharmaceutical spectrum of availible and approved by insurer drugs will shrink for most people. Out of pocket costs to individuals will increase as wellness programs are dropped for fiscal reasons.

28. Insurer maximums on dollar allocations will prove to be disasterous. Only the largest companies will be able to comply with the artificial horizon resulting in many regions having only 1 insurer availible in the pool.

29. Private insurance existing outside of the public pools will see an abandonment of the standard plan levels and show a strong migration towards private high premium low deductible Cadillac plans. Result forces most people into the public pools.

30. State sponsored pools of last resort collapse due to the expected elimination of most of the funds that provide states with budget shortfall coverage.

31. Health outcome and care issues either show slowed improvement, or a cessation of improvement.

32. Life expectancies slow.

33. Infant mortality increases.

34. Prescription rate per capita increases.

35. Surgery hours increase while surgerys per capita decrease.

36. Recovery days will be reduced.

37. Healthcare as a budget outlay at the federal level will increase 3%.

38. Healthcare as a component of GNP will increase 1%.

I'm stopping here simply because I could go on for literally hours. It's ruining my day thinking about this.

I pray I don't actually get sick next year because my health care is unaffordable to actually use. I'm hoping obamacare causes so much pain to the rest of the country that it collapses on its own.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With a law that is currently being changed on a, literally, weekly basis, I find it impossible to make any predictions. A law that is illegally rewritten by executive fiat so frequently to meet the demands of political expediency could be anything a month from now much less more than a year.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I find it impossible to make any predictions
Such courage of your convictions... You mean to say that you are lack the confidence in your own judgment to say whether or not Obamacare will turn into the most beneficial government program in history? You cannot make any predictions?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL the most beneficial?

Please.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
I find it impossible to make any predictions
Such courage of your convictions... You mean to say that you are lack the confidence in your own judgment to say whether or not Obamacare will turn into the most beneficial government program in history? You cannot make any predictions?
Mumm.no. I mean that since the law changes on a near weekly basis that we cannot know what the law will be next week much less more than a year from now. Making predictions about a law that is changed at the whim of a weak and ineffective president seeking short term politcal gain has nothing to do with the courage of convictions. When laws get made up as we go, how can we predict their ultimate impact? Your predictions are nothing more than blind ideological wishes.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red, I was being sarcastic.

G3 has been venting about Obamacare for ages, and yet now he is unwilling to even go out on a limb and say that he predicts that it will bring adverse consequences. In fact, he is not even confident disagreeing with the assertion that tens of millions of Americans will now get health care, that the overall rate of growth of health care costs will be reduced, and then tens of thousands of lives will be saved. He lacks confidence in his own judgments to make any comment whatsoever on what is likely to result from Obamacare.

Needless to say, I am surprised

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Slightly off-topic; evidence of Obamacare's success that has already been demonstrated

quote:
Still, the facts are striking. Since 2010, when the act was passed, real health spending per capita — that is, total spending adjusted for overall inflation and population growth — has risen less than a third as rapidly as its long-term average. Real spending per Medicare recipient hasn’t risen at all; real spending per Medicaid beneficiary has actually fallen slightly.

What could account for this good news? One obvious answer is the still-depressed economy, which might be causing people to forgo expensive medical care. But this explanation turns out to be problematic in multiple ways. For one thing, the economy had stabilized by 2010, even if the recovery was fairly weak, yet health costs continued to slow. For another, it’s hard to see why a weak economy would have more effect in reducing the prices of health services than it has on overall inflation. Finally, Medicare spending shouldn’t be affected by the weak economy, yet it has slowed even more dramatically than private spending.

A better story focuses on what appears to be a decline in some kinds of medical innovation — in particular, an absence of expensive new blockbuster drugs, even as existing drugs go off-patent and can be replaced with cheaper generic brands. This is a real phenomenon; it is, in fact, the main reason the Medicare drug program has ended up costing less than originally projected. But since drugs are only about 10 percent of health spending, it can only explain so much.

So what aspects of Obamacare might be causing health costs to slow? One clear answer is the act’s reduction in Medicare “overpayments” — mainly a reduction in the subsidies to private insurers offering Medicare Advantage Plans, but also cuts in some provider payments. A less certain but likely source of savings involves changes in the way Medicare pays for services. The program now penalizes hospitals if many of their patients end up being readmitted soon after being released — an indicator of poor care — and readmission rates have, in fact, fallen substantially. Medicare is also encouraging a shift from fee-for-service, in which doctors and hospitals get paid by the procedure, to “accountable care,” in which health organizations get rewarded for overall success in improving care while controlling costs.

]link
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Red, I was being sarcastic.

G3 has been venting about Obamacare for ages, and yet now he is unwilling to even go out on a limb and say that he predicts that it will bring adverse consequences. In fact, he is not even confident disagreeing with the assertion that tens of millions of Americans will now get health care, that the overall rate of growth of health care costs will be reduced, and then tens of thousands of lives will be saved. He lacks confidence in his own judgments to make any comment whatsoever on what is likely to result from Obamacare.

Needless to say, I am surprised

Needless to say, I am not. You're in a full court press here aren't you? You must be really panicked. Can't say I blame you either.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg

You realize why Medicare/caid spending has dropped don't you?

It has everything to do with the ACA - and it's designed to gut both of them funding and outlay wise.

Medicare and caid funding was preloaded with a bribe to the states that were foolish enough to accept the cash. Federal spending as a result will go down while state share will go way up. It's a ballance sheet transfer but not a real reduction since the states now cover the reduction. See 30 & 20.

I mean come on, you are citing one of the most serious flaws of this law as evidence that it's working? It's like earlier statements about how it's working because it's already collecting funds for future outlays- it's lowing the debt so it's working went the argument.

The reality is it's collecting a tax before the funds must be spent, yet the funds. Collected are not enough to cover the expected outlays. Ie shortly after the 2014 election when the funds will then start being spent, we will either have to print money or raise taxes to make the ACA revenue neutral.

It's just an utter disAster by any measure.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So flagrant were Krugman’s distortions, that in May 2005, former Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent was moved to vent his exasperation in a farewell column for the paper. Warning that “Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults,” Okrent urged publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. to “hold his columnists to higher standards.”

Not my words. But explains your source accurately.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red,

see Krugmans response which is excerpted on Delongs blog, short version is when Okrent provided specifics, he showed pretty clearly Okrent didn't know what he was talking about - it was a case of Okrent not knowing math and economics, not Krugman making mistakes.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/10/why-is-ex-new-y.html

Okrent appears to have damaged his own reputation with the false accusation. You should probably read the response by Krugman since it appears you only got half the story.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No. I have the full story. The issue is in this case that K has decided to tell half the story. Yes the federal outlays are down but no he hasn't told the full reason why they are down.

It's like saying an army successfully attack. Withou further stating the attack failed.

It's been a pattern of K's for over a decade. He might have been right in the earlier manipulation a of data but his pattern of omission really originated from the earlier incident.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Charles in Charge
Member
Member # 6879

 - posted      Profile for Charles in Charge   Email Charles in Charge       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The slowdown in the growth of healthcare spending happened in 2008 and 2009, before ACA was implemented. Even the CEA report Krugman links to identifies several other causes to help explain the slowdown. The CMS actually goes further and assigns weights to those causes:

quote:

1) Medicare/Medicaid/other programs “unrelated to the ACA” (50.7% of improvement).
2) Other factors “unrelated to the ACA” (26.1%).
3) Updated data on historical spending growth (21.8%).
4) Updated macroeconomic assumptions (6.1%).

ACA gets -4.7% credit for the slowdown.

And it's likely that overall ACA will continue to put upward pressure on healthcare spending. From the CEA report: "as the ACA’s coverage expansion comes online, health care spending may grow at an elevated rate for a few years."

CEA report: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/healthcostreport_final_noembargo_v2.pdf
CMS memo: http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/ProjectionsRevisionAnalysis.pdf

Relevant article reacting to both reports:
http://www.economics21.org/commentary/no-grounds-claim-obamacare-lowers-healthcare-costs

Posts: 110 | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That would be the facts K left out of his assessment this time.

As I pointed out in my predictions, I did take this into account.

The fact is, every few days regulatory stipulations change or Obama unilaterally changes the implementation time table for political gain. Ie the inability of small corporations to use the pools has now been pushed beyond the mid term election. Net result, those cost impacts to the federal government will occurr after an election thus allowing Obama to maintain his cost lowering fiction until after the voters elect a new congress.

It's just stupid.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From what I hear from people on Medicaid (most of the people I know), and from doctors that used to receive it (I have an oncologist and an opthamologist in my family), there's a general feeling that it's become selectively parsimonious.

That's anecdotal evidence; I'm interested if there's general survey of the doctor and patient ends of things.

I have little trust for people who use terms like "efficiency" ambiguously, especially when you find out that when it boils down, efficiency means less doctor time per patient, and more money going to the corporation/megahospital rather than into the pocket of flesh and blood caregivers.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"ObamaCare", whatever that label eventually comes to mean, will do one thing very effectively; It will successfully dismantle the private health-care system beyond recognition, and do serious short term damage to the welfare of individuals being bumped off their plans through 2014.

Republicans will retain control of the House, and pick up a majority in the Senate in the next election cycle, but this will do nothing to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Barry may not know how to govern/manage, but he has masterfully screwed up the most advanced health-care system in the world. It will take literally years to re-establish the professional networks, and doctor/patient relationships that he is hell-bent on placing under government oversight.

Liberalism will be starkly exposed for its ineptitude at central planning, and will not recover politically from this debacle... but that is not much of a consolation to those who find themselves in need of extensive medical services in the next few years.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel I don't think the republicans will win the senate.
Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red,

...That would explain your prediction. There are seven Democratic senators up for re-election who are beating the bushes at home over this holiday weekend. Monday will be quite telling in reference to the Barry loyalty factor. I am betting that they will attempt to preserve their seats by distancing themselves from any involvement in the cynical ploy that put this obamination on the books... but it is unlikely to work. The tactic will lead to the conclusion that they are either incompetent, liars, or both. All of them are on record.

Republicans only need four more seats to have a majority, and Harry's rule change for judicial appointments is going to come back to haunt the Dems in spades. Republicans will expand the (constitutional) simple majority standard to *all* aspects of Senate business, including legislation.

The backlash to presidential deception will be veto proof.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel, could you please elaborate on what you mean by
quote:
"It will successfully dismantle the private health-care system beyond recognition, and do serious short term damage to the welfare of individuals being bumped off their plans through 2014"
The difficulty I have in understanding this formulation is that "beyond recognition" is totally dependent on the perceptions of the recognizers. Previous discussions here on Ornery have shown that often those on different sides of the issues have entirely different perceptions of what are the facts of a situation. Can you be specific about what specific "dismantling" you are referring to, and what measurable damage that you believe will occur?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg

No offense but if you haven't noticed it has already dismantled and changed healthcare for the worse, further discussion is pointless.

Prime example

My wife's hospital is mandated by law to change the medical coding system to one approved by obamacare. The cost is 1.3 million. This new program of course replaces the one they put in three years ago at a cost of $300k.

To cover this unexpected cost- there have been staffing cuts to bedside care. Specifically senior nursing staff- ie with greater than ten years specialized training- are now being preferentially low censused in favor of new nurses with less than two years general experience.

You want a specialized nurse When you are in a neuro icu. You do not want the best nurses sitting at home due to budget restriction.

The example is just one component of the wholesale changes required by the ACA which are directly impacting a regional medical center. It is directly impacting patient care staffing.

And on a morbid note the icu deaths have gone up. Still in the industry standards- but it's still an increase. When you have a staff that normally has 3 nurses with 10 years experience staffed with every less than five year experienced nurse- you save the unsavable. When you have 1 nurse of ten years experience staffed with 3 nurses with less than five years experience you get more deaths.

But hey that is just one anecdote you can ignore.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No offense but if you haven't noticed it has already dismantled and changed healthcare for the worse, further discussion is pointless.
Lovely example of epistemic closure - you are so certain of yourself that mere discussion is pointless.

But then you provide a few facts about a single case. You assert that there has been a specific policy change of the hospital to down-grade staff levels in direct response to a $1.3 million expenditure. How do you know that's the root cause? What's the total level of expenditures over the past three years, and is $1.3 million such a large share that they made substantive medical policy decisions due to that cost? Were there any other cost pressures that were even greater? Is this a for-profit hospital (if it is, there's a chance they may have used Obamacare to deflect blame for a change that increases net profitability for the share holders).

At what rate had the level of medical care been suffering cut-backs before the institution of Obamacare? Prior to Obamacare being passed, medical costs had been going up by nearly double-digit percentages per year, and there was declines in medical services prior to institution of Obamacare. Since the rate of annual increases in health care costs has declined, it is both possible that reductions in service continue to be made and the reductions are the same or less than they would have been without Obamacare.

Despite all of those questions, and the example of a single data-point, you are so certain that you are right that "further discussion is pointless". You may be correct, but the root cause of that may be more due to your level of certainty than to your diagnosis

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How do I know?

I'm personal friends with the director of the hospital. If you'd like to come to my annual Christmas party and talk to him directly- you are more than welcome to attend.

While you are at it you can talk to half the directors, doctors, and nursing staff of the hospital. Close to 400 people are invited. About two thirds come every year, with about 100 in attendence each hour between 9-11 pm. After 11 it's usually down to the ICU unit until about 2:am

If you had read correctly you would have noticed I told you they put in an upgraded system three years ago. Y. ou would also have noticed the new system they are paying 1.3 million on is a direct result of the ACA.

If you had read the posts regarding K, you would have realized that costs are not and have not gone down since before the law was passed and also that the expected impact is for it to be even more expensive in 2014 and beyond.

I mean it doesn't get any clearer than that. You can ignore my data point. And you can ignore the federal government data.

You are free to believe whatever you want.

Your level of certainty however you have arrived at your current point of view may be precluding you from acknowledging growing evidence that your view is contraindicated by many factual objective data points.

It's kinda like the arguments made on the personal cost thread regarding the ACA. When I pointed out my cost changes- I was essentially told by some members here that I was telling a lie just to win an argument. Then, other people here started posting their cost increases. Then it began to be national news that essentially only the lowest income earners were seeing reasonable costs. Everyone else was looking at 50% increases at least.

Well in my case my insurance now costs me 104% more than last year, covers far less than last year, and has such high deductibles and copays that I can't even fracking use it next year. Meaning I'm fracking paying double for nothing. You know what my deductible per year is for out of network region coverage is? $27,000. Meaning if I am in Atlanta, and in a serious car accident requiring emergency treatment, I better hope to God I'm able to insist they drive me back to the ONLY in network er availible to me 92 miles away in Athens.

I have health care serfdom. I have to pay a 104% increase in premium, cannot afford to use what I'm paying for, and don't dare leave my local metro area because if I get injured, I'd bankrupt myself if I got treated out of network.

So dismiss this fracking data point as well.

The left's argument supporting this idiotic law is beyond Koolade drinking.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
you would have realized that costs are not and have not gone down since before the law was passed
Red, I totally realize that cost are not and have not gone down. I have written about Obamacare at length and have never made any such claims. I have made assertions about a reduction in the annual rate of increase. On the one hand, that's not as good as a decrease. On the other hand, the Congressional Budget has projected a decrease in future debt by over a trillion dollars due to this change, so it is not a negligible factor.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am skeptical about part of your comment that "my insurance now costs me 104% more than last year, covers far less than last year, and has such high deductibles and copays that I can't even fracking use it next year", only because the policies that were disallowed by the ACA were disallowed because of inadequate coverage, particularly for catastrophic events (for example, one set of insurance that is no longer permitted had an exclusion that did not cover chemotherapy). I understand how policies can cost more and have higher deductibles, but I would have assumed that came with higher levels of coverage for certain contingencies. Now, you may not currently value those contingencies, but they would render inaccurate your statement "covers far less than last year"; a more accurate statement would be that you don't want the extra coverage that is mandated by law.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With respect to the trend in medical costs, do you accept that they have gone from an average annual increase of about 8-10% (for decades) to a 4% level since the year the ACA was passed? And we are now just arguing with respect to causality for the change in the rate of growth?

The "relevant article" from the Manhattan Institute pivots on the key phrase
quote:
But no one can rightly claim that CMS has revised their near-term cost projections downward because of the ACA
That's not precisely the question that we are interested in; we are interested in determining what level of the observed savings in health care costs are due to reductions in the rate of growth due to ACA. And if that is our question, the difference between two CMS estimates is not the right measure, particularly as the first CMS measure already had substantial savings assumed in Medicare costs due to the ACA. An earlier CMS estimate stated that the ACA "achieves short term savings of over $200 billion in Medicare through 2016 according to the independent CMS Actuary" link In particular, there are specific real things, such as elimination of an excessive Medicare payments to private insurers who operate in Medicare Advantage, that are in place due to ACA and saving many tens of billions of dollars (and in rebuttal to any argument that savings must come out of patient care, a similar set of savings was achieved (~$60B) when the government eliminated the private "middlemen" from student loan programs.

[ December 01, 2013, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"... we are interested in determining what level of the observed savings in health care costs are due to reductions in the rate of growth due to ACA."...

This logical construction is identical to Biden's "jobs created or *saved* " mantra.

When unemployment increased, all that our half-whit VP had to say was that, but for the jobs stimulus, things would be worse... never mind the cost to the taxpayer to create these "shovel ready" jobs that evaporated with the completion of any given government contract.

When the baseline is separated from reality, and jumps an ether bound freight, how can any valid measure of success be cited? Repeal the medical device tax if you are interested in isolating the stand-alone viability of ObamaCare "savings".

The fact that administration propaganda extolls gold/silver/bronze "plans" as a "good product", that "people want", offered on the website "marketplace" is some indicator that even these control freaks understand ObamaCare needs to borrow jargon form actual markets to fly in under the radar. It could not be bum-rushed through Congress, much less succeed within a competitive economic environment, on its own merit.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg iv covered in detail what my coverage was and what it will be. Matter of fact I went into a lot of detail

If you still can't fracking comprehend facts it's not my concern.

I'm paying double, for less coverage, and with a deductible and copay that makes using the insurance economically responsible.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I had dental I won't next year.

I had eye care I won't next year.

I had affordable copays of 40 I can't afford 120.

My coverage 1 dollar began afte copay and yearly deductible was $1,000. Next year my dollar 1 coverage does not kick in until $9,000

If I got sick and had to go to an er while away from home I had a nationwide system availible. Next year not so much I gett a 27k deductible

I'm sorry but there is just too much fracking cheap with this law that is wrong that your skepticism is simply a moronic partisan attitude.

Oh wait I have birth control coverage still! Too bad I'm still Catholic.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
RedVW,

as has been pointed out - your situation appears to be highly anomalous.

This analysis by wallethub suggests most states, businesses, and people will be overall winners with the changes.

http://wallethub.com/edu/obamacare-report-states-benefiting-most-least/1276/

Regarding those who think insurance companies are 'doomed' by ACA - they've typically had their share prices nearly double over the past year, and many are valued at about 6 to 10 fold their historical rate from 2000 and earlier.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR

My situation is HARDLY anomalous.

Listen very carefully. If a person is still thinking the ACA is a good deal at this point that person is either mentally challenged, uneducated, or incapable of research.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Listen very carefully. If a person is still thinking the ACA is a good deal at this point that person is either mentally challenged, uneducated, or incapable of research.
Red, are you literally saying that not a single person has a better deal because of ACA? Because that statement would be as arrogant and incorrect as any statements of any who denied the entire truth of your own experience.

But let me also add that I do appreciate that you did lay out specific predictions - you do have the courage of your convictions, and in 18 months we'll see how accurate our predictions are.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red: Please see your email.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose I can make a couple of predictions.

The definition of "anomalous" will change. It will no longer mean something that deviates from the norm. For example, official projections are that in excess of 70 million will lose their insurance. These people will be called "highly anomalous" or "anecdotal" or something like that. Insurance premiums nationwide are expected to increase on average by 41%. This will be called "anomalous" or something similar.

The definition of "success" will also change as there will be no circumstances under which some will accept a failure. There could be bodies piling up in the streets due to lack of healthcare for readily curable diseases and the hyper-partisan ideologues so invested in ObamaCare will call it a unqualified "success".

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To nail that prediction down, G3, do you believe that a) there will be bodies piling up in the streets; and b) hyper-partisan ideologues will call the ACA "an unqualified success?"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ummm, no.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  46  47  48   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1